Talk:Kaundinya

Good article nomination on hold

This article is stable, neutral, and quite well written. But it is not yet sufficiently broad in its coverage of the topic and more content is needed.

I would like to see an expanded lead section, perhaps three or four paragraphs long, which summarises the main points of the article (see WP:LEAD). I would also suggest a section immediately following the lead where more context is given for those readers who are unfamiliar with basic Buddhist history and terminology. Some events surrounding the birth of Siddartha at Lumbini and his early life could be usefully discussed here.

Later in the article, there seems to be a sudden jump to the "Later years" section and I wonder if some additional material could smooth the transition to this section. I found the second last paragraph of the article (about reincarnations) difficult to follow and think it should be re-written.

My other main suggestion is that the citations be improved by making sure that references to books include page number where possible. More than one in-text citation may be needed to support infomation provided in long paragraphs.

I've decided to put this article on hold as the article has the potential for GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for the detailed comments. The lead was indeed an oversight, I forgot to expand it as necessary, but have now done so. In regards to the lead, it is now about 1/6 or 1/7 of the main body text. I feel that increasing it any more would make the lead too diluted with respect to the main text.

I have added a little bit about Siddhartha's upbringing and the attempts to shield him from suffering. I also noted that he was the only son in 20 years of marriage so Suddhodana expected more from him. I think this gives people more context on what the historical persepctive is. With regards to Buddhist doctrine, I'm not sure that this is the place to give definitions of karma and reincarnation, and these concepts are quite popular in the western world nowadays so I think people have a basic idea.

I managed to scounge out a bit more info. I forgot that I had not finished going through the encyclopedia article when I last did this page in January. But that seems to be the extent of the details in Buddhist textbooks and such. I also added a bit about his nephew Punna, who later became one of the leading disciples. Hopefully this info about proselytising makes it smoother to the later years, but I could not find more info about any notable developments, eg unlike Devadatta's assassination attempts and other non-clockwork type things.

The encyclopedia article is actually only 2 pages long. It was typo in the ref, so one ref in that regard should be enough

In the reincarnations section, I have given a bit more context at the start.

I hope these are improvements. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. I'm pleased to be able to award GA status. If you get a chance to put a few in-text citations in the lead, and explain a few basic terms such as bhikkhu and arahant, that would benefit the general reader. Thanks. -- Johnfos 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red links

Are all the red links potential articles? If not, they need not be wikilinked. It doesn't look good in the article and it confuses many new readers. LaraLove 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are important things but unfortunately the coverage of Buddhism on wikipedia is poor. Gautama Buddha's five lead disciples were Moggallana, Sariputta, Anuruddha, Ananda and Mahakassapa. See how stubby all of them are. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article is listed. Just a few comments for anyone who wants to go through the bureaucratic process:

1. article seems to make little attempt to distinguish between legend & historical fact
2. birth name in infobox is wrong, as the story clearly says the 1st name was given him by the Buddha
3. date is probably wrong, as most scholars now date the Buddha's death around 400 BC

Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kuldevi (Question moved from inappropriate article)

who is kuldevi of this gotra????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8100:7EAB:4E9:46F6:29B0:BB28 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaundinya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004075400/http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/dictionary/define?tid=803 to http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/dictionary/define?tid=803

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kaundinya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• Well-written and interesting, but based on only one RS, that is, Malalasekera, and that is a tertiary source. The other sources are all primary and not-RS. Moreover, the article offers little with regard to reflection, but only relates the traditional accounts, following mostly the Pāli tradition, without mentioning any other Early Buddhist Texts. Thus the broadness and verifiability criteria aren't met, and the article should therefore be delisted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• As usual for articles about Buddhism, no response has been given. I am delisting.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yoga pose?

There is nothing to indicate that the Koundinya mentioned in the book about yoga poses is the same as the Buddhist figure. I have not come across any sources that say that the Buddhist Kaundinya founded a Koundinya Gotra.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a source has been provided as evidence that the yoga pose is named after the Buddhist Kaundinya, but it is not a reliable source.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am saddened to see that the naming of the asana in Kaundinya's honour is thought to be my invention. Numerous yoga books, journals and websites agree that the pose is named for the sage who predicted that Siddhartha Gautama would become the Buddha. I have cited both Light on Yoga and Asana Journal, both reliable sources; other sources corroborate the interpretation, and to be honest, there is no other sage of this name who could be called even slightly notable, so it's hard to see where confusion might lie. At any rate, it isn't an editorial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why Iyengar mentions a Gotra; someone has included it in the List of gotras --- without a citation, of course --- so I presume Iyengar is correct, there must be an Indian tradition of such a thing. More than likely the tradition long post-dates the sage himself! I've had a look about and Upendra Thakur writes "...Kaundinya gotra which came to be started after the name of Kaundinya, one of the great sages of ancient India..." so I should say my guess is correct, the gotra is a later accretion; but Iyengar clearly believed the simple story, that Kaundinya predictor of Gautama's Buddhahood founded the gotra named for him, and he knew that the pose had been named for that Kaundinya, something that Krishnamacharya must have told him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of intentionally inventing anything. There should be independent sources to back up the claim. Perhaps I can help search for confirmation (or falsification). What spellings of Kaundinya are used in traditional pre-modern Hindu works? I just noticed Koundinya above, and I wonder whether there are any other.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - neither intentionally nor unintentionally, actually. The world of 20th-21st century international yoga (from Krishnamacharya onwards, c. 1930s) is unannimous in believing that Kaundinyasana is named for the sage Kaundinya. The pose did not exist before then so you won't find it; the sage would have been named in Sanskrit and in southern Indian languages if you're researching stories, but I really don't find it necessary as we have both the book by Thakur and Light on Yoga, so we are already very well cited for one small fact which every yoga teacher in the world takes as obvious. I've no idea why you should be finding this so hard to accept, it's really no big deal. Perhaps it would help if one appreciates that we are talking about what 20th century yoga teachers believed, not at all about what really was going on in the Buddha's times. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I just find it odd I have never come across the information that you wrote about Kaundinya, e.g. he started a gotra, etc. It just seems the sources confuse two people. The information does not match with what I know about Buddhist tradition. I am not blaming you for anything, just saying that it does not make sense, including the fact that yoga teachers would refer to a Buddhist figure. If you don't think it is important, then don't respond. I know you are a senior editor with much to do, so I won't blame you for leaving it at this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The direct statement is simply that in the 20th century, the asana was named for the dimly-perceived historic figure, as seen through the lens of story and accreted tradition. The supporting statement for the talk page only is that in the 20th century Iyengar believed there was a Kaundinya gotra; and the support for that is that there is indeed such a gotra, now, two thousand years later. That of course says very little about whether Kaundinya personally founded the gotra: it's just as likely that devotees ascribed it to him, and others such as Iyengar accepted the tradition at face value. As for the different traditions, Kaundinya is the Indian/Hindu name of Kondinna the Buddhist figure, and the two traditions were intertwined for many centuries; and the Hindu tradition is very willing to revere saints and prophets of other religions even today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)